DOCSLIB.ORG

Reaching Beyond the Ivory Tower: a “How To” Manual *

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Reaching Beyond the Ivory Tower: a “How To” Manual * Reaching Beyond the Ivory Tower: A “How To” Manual * Daniel Byman and Matthew Kroenig Security Studies (forthcoming, June 2016) *For helpful comments on earlier versios of this article, the authors would like to thank Michael C. Desch, Rebecca Friedman, Bruce Jentleson, Morgan Kaplan, Marc Lynch, Jeremy Shapiro, and participants in the Program on International Politics, Economics, and Security Speaker Series at the University of Chicago, participants in the Nuclear Studies Research Initiative Launch Conference, Austin, Texas, October 17-19, 2013, and members of a Midwest Political Science Association panel. Particular thanks to two anonymous reviewers and the editors of Security Studies for their helpful comments. 1 Joseph Nye, one of the rare top scholars with experience as a senior policymaker, lamented “the walls surrounding the ivory tower never seemed so high” – a view shared outside the academy and by many academics working on national security.1 Moreover, this problem may only be getting worse: a 2011 survey found that 85 percent of scholars believe the divide between scholars’ and policymakers’ worlds is growing. 2 Explanations range from the busyness of policymakers’ schedules, a disciplinary shift that emphasizes theory and methodology over policy relevance, and generally impenetrable academic prose. These and other explanations have merit, but such recommendations fail to recognize another fundamental issue: even those academic works that avoid these pitfalls rarely shape policy.3 Of course, much academic research is not designed to influence policy in the first place. The primary purpose of academic research is not, nor should it be, to shape policy, but to expand the frontiers of human knowledge. For many academics, the creation of original research and gaining the esteem and recognition of their fellow scholars is gratification enough. For such scholars, this article may be of little use and there is no reason to read further. Many other 1 Joseph S. Nye Jr., “Scholars on the Sidelines,” Washington Post, April 13, 2009, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/12/AR2009041202260_pf.html and Nicholas Kristof, “Professors, We Need You!,” New York Times, February 15, 2014, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/16/opinion/sunday/kristof-professors-we-need-you.html?_r=0 2 Paul Avey, Michael Desch, James D. Long, Daniel Maliniak, and Michael J. Tierney, “Inside the Ivory Tower IV,” Foreign Policy (January/ February 2012), 66. 3 For valuable takes on this issue, see among others, Alexander George, Bridging the Gap: Theory and Practice in Foreign Policy (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Institute of Peace, 1993); Alexander George, Presidential Decisionmaking in Foreign Policy: The Effective Use of Information and Advice (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1980); Bruce W. Jentleson, “The Need for Praxis: Bringing Policy Relevance Back In,” International Security 26, no. 4 (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Belfer Center, Spring 2002): 169-83; Joseph Kruzel, “More a Chasm Than a Gap, but Do Scholars Want to Bridge It?” Mershon International Studies Review 38, no. 1 (1994): 38; Joseph Lepgold and Miroslav Nincic, Beyond the Ivory Tower: International Relations and the Pursuit of Policy Relevance (New York: Columbia University Press, 2001); Ian Shapiro, The Flight from Reality in the Human Sciences (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005); Henry Farrell, “Why Do Policy Makers Hate International Relations Scholarship,” September 18, 2013, The Monkey Cage , September 18, 2013, http://themonkeycage.org/2013/09/18/why-do-policy- makers-hate-international-relations-scholarship/; Stephen M. Walt, “The Relationship between Theory and Policy in International Relations,” Annual Review of Political Science 8 (2005): 29-32; Philip Zelikow, “Foreign Policy Engineering: From Theory to Practice and Back Again,” International Security 18, no. 4 (Spring 1994): 143-71. An especially valuable recent work is Paul Avey and Michael Desch, “What Do Policymakers Want from Us? Results of a Survey of Current and Former Senior National Security Decision-makers,” International Studies Quarterly 58, no. 4 (December 2014). 2 scholars, however, are drawn to political science research in the hope that their ideas may influence important policy debates. According to the most recent TRIP survey, 60% of American IR scholars have sought “to make their research more relevant to policy practitioners.” 4 Indeed, there is no reason why at least some subset of the international relations scholarship produced cannot both generate novel theoretical and empirical contributions and simultaneously inform foreign policy debates. In order for this to happen regularly, however, scholars need to be cognizant of the types of scholarship that are useful to policymakers, the conditions under which outside ideas can matter, and steps academics can take to bring their work to the attention of policymakers, as well as the broader barriers that make policymakers ignore academic work in general. The questions of what , when, and how outside ideas receive a hearing are particularly important for those scholars who are attempting to be relevant: it is one thing to write only for academics and find that policymakers ignore one’s work; it is far worse to try to write for policymakers and still be ignored. This article is a think piece. It tries to identify the conditions under which ideas of academics – and non-government knowledge in general – are more likely to be considered by and influence those in the policy world. To reach beyond the ivory tower, we argue that scholars should: design research that might produce actionable findings and recommendations, identify moments of ripeness in policy debates, and inject their ideas into the policy process. In particular, certain types of research, such as studies with relevant dependent variables and manipulable independent variables are most helpful to policymakers. To be relevant, scholarship must also be timely, appearing when the decision making process is ferment. The article also 4 Sue Peterson, Mike Tierney, Dan Maliniak, and Ryan Powers, “Teaching, Research, and International Policy (TRIP) 2014 Survey of International Relations Scholars,” available at https://trip.wm.edu/reports/2014/rp_2014/index.php. 3 argues that the conditions under which academic ideas are most likely to matter include discontinuous events or shocks, such as the 9/11 attacks; policy failures, such as the outbreak of an insurgency in Iraq; and unexpected decisions for which there is little initial government knowledge (such as the U.S. decision to intervene for humanitarian purposes in Somalia). Finally, the article argues that there are concrete steps, including creating personal relationships with policymakers, positioning one’s work in the bureaucratic fray, and writing short, spin-off pieces for non-academic outlets with the policy implications clearly spelled out, that academics can take to disseminate their ideas into the policy process. Unfortunately, scholars who want to influence policy often do not design research appropriately or take advantage of these conditions and opportunities to advance their ideas. This article draws on a range of empirical sources. These include an analysis of policymaker memoirs and writings to understand from where they get their ideas. 5 In addition, the authors of this paper conducted several interviews of individuals in 2013-2014 who serve or have served in the policy community, with an emphasis on those with an academic background – a “best case” for the influence of outside ideas in the policy world. In addition, this paper draws upon the relevant experiences of both authors in serving numerous government agencies and in attempting to conduct policy-relevant research. From these sources, this article advances several propositions about why certain ideas have a policy impact while others do not. 5 See Madeleine Albright, Madam Secretary: A Memoir (Hyperion, 2003); James Baker III, The Politics of Diplomacy (G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1995); Joe Biden, Promises to Keep: On life and Politics, (Random House, 2008); George H. W. Bush and Brent Scowcroft, A World Transformed (New York: Vintage, 1998); George W. Bush, Decision Points (New York: Broadway Paperbacks, 2010); Richard Cheney, In My Time (New York: Threshold Editions, 2011); William J. Clinton, My Life (New York: Vintage, 2005); Robert Gates , From the Shadows: The Ultimate Insider’s Story of the Five Presidents And How They Won the Cold War (Simon & Schuster, 2007); My Life (New York: Vintage, 2005); Douglas Feith, War and Decision: Inside the Pentagon at the Dawn of the War on Terrorism (Harper Perennial, 2006); Chuck Hagel, America: Our Next Chapter: Tough Questions, Straight Answers , (Ecco, 2008); Robert Gates, Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War (New York: Knopf, 2014); Colin Powell, My American Journal (New York: Ballantine Books, 1995); Condoleezza Rice, No Higher Honor (New York: Crown Publishers, 2011); Donald Rumsfeld, Known and Unknown (Penguin, New York: 2011); George P. Shultz, Turmoil and Triumph: My Years as Secretary of State (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1993); and George Tenet, At the Center of the Storm: The CIA During America’s Time of Crisis (Harper Perennial, 2008). 4 The remainder of this article has seven parts. First, we define our key concept: policy relevance. Second, the article makes the case for policy relevance, arguing both for its value to the policymaker and contending that it improves the work of scholars. Third, we review existing
Load more

Recommended publications
  • International Relations in a Changing World: a New Diplomacy? Edward Finn
    INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS IN A CHANGING WORLD: A NEW DIPLOMACY? EDWARD FINN Edward Finn is studying Comparative Literature in Latin and French at Princeton University. INTRODUCTION The revolutionary power of technology to change reality forces us to re-examine our understanding of the international political system. On a fundamental level, we must begin with the classic international relations debate between realism and liberalism, well summarised by Stephen Walt.1 The third paradigm of constructivism provides the key for combining aspects of both liberalism and realism into a cohesive prediction for the political future. The erosion of sovereignty goes hand in hand with the burgeoning Information Age’s seemingly unstoppable mechanism for breaking down physical boundaries and the conceptual systems grounded upon them. Classical realism fails because of its fundamental assumption of the traditional sovereignty of the actors in its system. Liberalism cannot adequately quantify the nebulous connection between prosperity and freedom, which it assumes as an inherent truth, in a world with lucrative autocracies like Singapore and China. Instead, we have to accept the transformative power of ideas or, more directly, the technological, social, economic and political changes they bring about. From an American perspective, it is crucial to examine these changes, not only to understand their relevance as they transform the US, but also their effects in our evolving global relationships.Every development in international relations can be linked to some event that happened in the past, but never before has so much changed so quickly at such an expansive global level. In the first section of this article, I will examine the nature of recent technological changes in diplomacy and the larger derivative effects in society, which relate to the future of international politics.
    [Show full text]
  • The 'Great Debates' in International Relations Theory
    The ‘Great Debates’ in international relations theory Written by IJ Benneyworth This PDF is auto-generated for reference only. As such, it may contain some conversion errors and/or missing information. For all formal use please refer to the official version on the website, as linked below. The ‘Great Debates’ in international relations theory https://www.e-ir.info/2011/05/20/the-%e2%80%98great-debates%e2%80%99-in-international-relations-theory/ IJ BENNEYWORTH, MAY 20 2011 International relations in the most basic sense have existed since neighbouring tribes started throwing rocks at, or trading with, each other. From the Peloponnesian War, through European poleis to ultimately nation states, Realist trends can be observed before the term existed. Likewise the evolution of Liberalist thinking, from the Enlightenment onwards, expressed itself in calls for a better, more cooperative world before finding practical application – if little success – after The Great War. It was following this conflict that the discipline of International Relations (IR) emerged in 1919. Like any science, theory was IR’s foundation in how it defined itself and viewed the world it attempted to explain, and when contradictory theories emerged clashes inevitably followed. These disputes throughout IR’s short history have come to be known as ‘The Great Debates’, and though disputed it is generally felt there have been four, namely ‘Realism/Liberalism’, ‘Traditionalism/Behaviouralism’, ‘Neorealism/Neoliberalism’ and the most recent ‘Rationalism/Reflectivism’. All have had an effect on IR theory, some greater than others, but each merit analysis of their respective impacts. First we shall briefly explore the historical development of IR theory then critically assess each Debate before concluding.
    [Show full text]
  • Paul Doty 1920–2011
    Spring 2012 www.belfercenter.org Paul Doty 1920 –2011 Paul Doty , who founded the Belfer Center in 1973, died on December 5, 2011. He was 91. Steven E. Miller , a member of Paul Doty’s early staff who is now director of the Belfer Center’s International Security Program and editor-in-chief of the journal International Security , remembers his colleague and friend in comments below. Miller’s complete remembrance, along with other tributes, can be found at http://rememberingpauldoty.org/ . S aul Doty was a man of immense accom - N O M plishment: a world class figure in both M I P S Z science and public policy, a builder of institu - T I F tions, an intellectual leader, a stalwart at Har - M O vard for more than 60 years. He had major T accomplishments in biochemistry and molec - ular biology. He was a leading expert on nuclear arms control. He founded Harvard’s Biochemistry Department and the Kennedy School’s Belfer Center for Science and Inter - national Affairs. He created leading journals in both fields. He built teams of colleagues that were second to none. His former students and fellows represent a legacy that would make any scholar proud. Despite his stature, he was unassuming, Paul Doty (left) asks a question of Senator Sam Nunn (center right) during a JFK Jr. Forum in 2010 titled “Nuclear almost self-effacing, and approachable. He Tipping Point.” Panelists included Belfer Center Director Graham Allison (right) and David Sanger , senior fellow. rose high, but on his merits, because he seemed to lack almost completely the self- underestimate, he was exceptionally effective and was unflagging in his efforts to make a promotional instinct.
    [Show full text]
  • Department of Political Science Semester-IV (General Course)
    Department of Political Science By: Dr. Prafulla Kumar Das Semester-IV (General Course) DSC-1D (CC-4): Introduction to International Relations Credit 06 DSC1DT: Introduction to International Relations Course Content: 1. Approaches to International Relations b) Neo-Liberalism: Complex Interdependence (Robert O. Keohane and Joseph Nye) ( : Liberalism)) ও উপ উপ উ ও ও প , , প , , , উ উপ উ Liberalism উ liberalis উ । উ উ - ।উ ও প । উ ও উ । উ প , ও ও প । প ১৭৭৬ " "। ও , ও প , প । প , ও । উ ও উৎ ও প ও প উ উ প , প প ও প প ও উ ও , , ও ও ও , উ , ও , , ও । উ প , ও উ - ৎ , উ প , ও ও । Complex interdependence Complex interdependence in international relations is the idea put forth by Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye. The term "complex interdependence" was claimed by Raymond Leslie Buell in 1925 to describe the new ordering among economies, cultures and races. The very concept was popularized through the work of Richard N. Cooper (1968). With the analytical construct of complex interdependence in their critique of political realism, "Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye go a step further and analyze how international politics is transformed by interdependence" . The theorists recognized that the various and complex transnational connections and interdependencies between states and societies were increasing, while the use of military force and power balancing are decreasing but remain important. In making use of the concept of interdependence, Keohane and Nye also importantly differentiated between interdependence and dependence in analyzing the role of power in politics and the relations between international actors.
    [Show full text]
  • The Future of Power
    Transcript The Future of Power Joseph Nye University Distinguished Service Professor, Harvard University Chair: Sir Jeremy Greenstock Former British Ambassador to the United Nations (1998-2003) 10 May 2011 The views expressed in this document are the sole responsibility of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of Chatham House, its staff, associates or Council. Chatham House is independent and owes no allegiance to any government or to any political body. It does not take institutional positions on policy issues. This document is issued on the understanding that if any extract is used, the speaker(s) and Chatham House should be credited, preferably with the details of the event. Where this document refers to or reports statements made by speakers at an event every effort has been made to provide a fair representation of their views and opinions, but the ultimate responsibility for accuracy lies with this document’s author(s). The published text of speeches and presentations may differ from delivery. Transcript: The Future of Power Joseph Nye: I’d like to be not a typical professor in the sense of not speaking in fifty-minute bytes at a time, but restrain myself and follow Jeremy’s good instruction. Having been a visitor to Ditchley a few times I know he runs a very tight ship. The argument that I make in this new book about the future of powers, that there are two large power shifts going on in this century. One, I call power transition, which is a shift of power among states, which is largely from West to East.
    [Show full text]
  • MR1427.0 I-Xii
    Intelligent Giving Insights and Strategies for Higher Education Donors • Jonathan P. Caulkins Jay Cole Melissa Hardoby Donna Keyser Prepared for the Council for Aid to Education R Council for Aid to Education The research described in this report was supported by the Council for Aid to Education. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Intelligent giving : insights and strategies for higher education donors / Jonathan P. Caulkins ... [et al.]. p. cm. “MR-1427.” Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 0-8330-3134-1 1. Universities and colleges—United States—Endowments. 2. Benefactors— Charitable contributions—United States. 3. Education, Higher—United States— Finance. I. Caulkins, Jonathan P. (Jonathan Paul), 1965– LB2336 .I55 2002 378.1'06—dc21 2002024813 RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND® is a registered trademark. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions or policies of its research sponsors. Cover design by Tanya Maiboroda © Copyright 2002 RAND All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form by any electronic or mechanical means (including photocopying, recording, or information storage and retrieval) without permission in writing from RAND. Published 2002 by RAND 1700 Main Street, P.O. Box 2138, Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138 1200 South Hayes Street, Arlington, VA 22202-5050 201 North Craig Street, Suite 102, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 RAND URL: http://www.rand.org/ To order RAND documents or to obtain additional information, contact Distribution Services: Telephone: (310) 451-7002; Fax: (310) 451-6915; Email: [email protected] 2 Velocity Management Preface his book is for those wishing to make a major gift to an institution Tof higher education and seeking an intellectual framework for deciding how much to give to which school(s), for which purpose(s), over what periods of time, or with which (if any) restrictions.
    [Show full text]
  • Liberalism in a Realist World: International Relations As an American Scholarly Tradition
    Liberalism in a Realist World: International Relations as an American Scholarly Tradition G. John Ikenberry The study of international relations (IR) is a worldwide pursuit with each country having its own theoretical orientations, preoccupations and debates. Beginning in the early twentieth century, the US created its own scholarly traditions of IR. Eventually, IR became an American social science with the US becoming the epicentre for a worldwide IR community engaged in a set of research programmes and theoretical debates. The discipline of IR emerged in the US at a time when it was the world’s most powerful state and a liberal great power caught in a struggle with illiberal rivals. This context ensured that the American theoretical debates would be built around both power and liberal ideals. Over the decades, the two grand projects of realism and liberalism struggled to define the agenda of IR in the US. These traditions have evolved as they attempted to make sense of contemporary developments, speak to strategic position of the US and its foreign policy, as well as deal with the changing fashions and stand- ards of social science. The rationalist formulations of realism and liberalism sparked reactions and constructivism has arisen to offer counterpoints to the rational choice theory. Keywords: International Relations Theory, Realism, Liberalism The study of International Relations (IR) is a worldwide pursuit but every country has its own theoretical orientations, preoccupations and debates. This is true for the American experience—and deeply so. Beginning in the early twentieth cen- tury, the US created its own scholarly traditions of IR.
    [Show full text]
  • International Relations in the US Academy 1
    International Studies Quarterly (2011) 55, 437–464 International Relations in the US Academy1 Daniel Maliniak University of California, San Diego Amy Oakes College of William and Mary Susan Peterson College of William and Mary and Michael J. Tierney College of William and Mary Using two new data sources to describe trends in the international rela- tions (IR) discipline since 1980—a database of every article published in the 12 leading journals in the field and three surveys of IR faculty at US colleges and universities—we explore the extent of theoretical, methodological, and epistemological diversity in the American study of IR and the relationship between IR scholarship and the policy-making community in the United States. We find, first, that there is consider- able and increasing theoretical diversity. Although US scholars believe and teach their students that the major paradigms—realism, liberalism, Marxism, and constructivism—define and divide the discipline, most peer-reviewed research does not advance a theoretical argument from one of these theoretical traditions. There is no evidence, moreover, that realism and its focus on power relations among states dominate, or since 1980 ever has dominated, the literature. Second, although three times as many IR scholars report using qualitative methods as their pri- mary approach, more articles published in the top journals currently employ quantitative tools than any other methodological approach. Third, there exists little epistemological diversity in the field: American IR scholars share a strong and growing commitment to positivism. Finally, there is a disjuncture between what American scholars of IR think about the value of producing policy-relevant work and the actual research they generate: few articles in top journals offer explicit policy advice, but scholars believe that their work is both prescriptive and use- ful to policymakers.
    [Show full text]
  • A Brief History of the Future of Urban Computing and Locative Media
    A Brief History of the Future of Urban Computing and Locative Media by Anne Galloway, B.A. (Hons.), M.A. A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Sociology and Anthropology Carleton University Ottawa, Ontario © 2008 Anne Galloway Library and Bibliotheque et 1*1 Archives Canada Archives Canada Published Heritage Direction du Branch Patrimoine de I'edition 395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington Ottawa ON K1A0N4 Ottawa ON K1A0N4 Canada Canada Your file Votre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-43894-7 Our file Notre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-43894-7 NOTICE: AVIS: The author has granted a non­ L'auteur a accorde une licence non exclusive exclusive license allowing Library permettant a la Bibliotheque et Archives and Archives Canada to reproduce, Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver, publish, archive, preserve, conserve, sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public communicate to the public by par telecommunication ou par I'lnternet, prefer, telecommunication or on the Internet, distribuer et vendre des theses partout dans loan, distribute and sell theses le monde, a des fins commerciales ou autres, worldwide, for commercial or non­ sur support microforme, papier, electronique commercial purposes, in microform, et/ou autres formats. paper, electronic and/or any other formats. The author retains copyright L'auteur conserve la propriete du droit d'auteur ownership and moral rights in et des droits moraux qui protege cette these. this thesis. Neither the thesis Ni la these ni des extraits substantiels de nor substantial extracts from it celle-ci ne doivent etre imprimes ou autrement may be printed or otherwise reproduits sans son autorisation.
    [Show full text]
  • Soft Power and Higher Education
    Joseph Nye Harvard University Soft Power and Higher Education SOFT POWER IS THE ABILITY to get what you want through attraction rather than through coercion or payments. It arises from the attractiveness of a country’s culture, political ideals, and foreign and domestic policies. When the United States’ policies are seen as legitimate in the eyes of others, our soft power is enhanced. Joseph Nye, dean of the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard Universi- ty from 1995 to 2004, coined the term “soft power.” He describes how soft power differs from hard military strength and economic power, and why it is becoming more important than in the past—largely due to globalization and the communica- tions revolution. Nye suggests how higher education leaders might enhance Ameri- can soft power by helping to build a better understanding of the nature of power and increasing international student and cultural exchange programs. Soft Power Power comes in many guises. Although we may believe that the United States is the only superpower in a unipolar world, in reality the distri- bution of power resources in the contemporary information age varies greatly across different issues. Power always depends on its context— requiring a far more complex analysis than first meets the eye. World politics has become like a three-dimensional chess game in which one can win only by playing vertically as well as horizontally. On the top 11 board of classic military issues, the United Figure 1. States is indeed the only superpower Power with global military might and reach, Hard Soft and it makes sense to speak in tradition- Agenda al terms of unipolarity or hegemony.
    [Show full text]
  • Sovereignty and Power in a Networked World Order
    Sovereignty and Power in a Networked World Order ANNE-MARIE SLAUGHTER* [T]here is a separate and critical need for programs like this one-programs devoted to the real nitty gritty of law enforcement against international cartels, where frontline enforcers can meet one another and try to solve common practicalproblems. -Former Assistant Attorney GeneralJoel Klein, commenting on an internationalworkshop for antitrustregulators' I. INTRODUCTION Theorists, pundits, and policymakers all recognize that traditional conceptions of sovereignty are under assault. The result is a seemingly endless debate about the changing nature of sovereignty. What does it mean? Does it still exist? Is it useful? Louis Henkin laments the "S word," arguing that it now obstructs more than it accomplishes. 2 Stephen Krasner offers four different definitions of sovereignty-international legal sovereignty, Westphalian sovereignty, domestic sovereignty, and interdependence sovereignty; 3 Robert Keohane distinguishes between formal and "operational" sovereignty.4 * Dean, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University; President, American Society of International Law 2002-2004. J.D., 1985, Harvard Law School; D.Phil., 1992, Oxford University; M.Phil., 1982, Oxford University; B.A., 1982, Princeton University. This Article was adapted with permission from a chapter in the author's recent book, A NEW WORLD ORDER (Princeton Univ. Press, 2004). Specifically, Parts IV and V, and portions of Part III, were drawn from Chapter 5 of A NEW WORLD ORDER, while the surrounding material in Parts I, II, III and VI explore the implications of networked governance for traditional notions of power and sovereignty. The author would like to thank William Burke-White and Terry Murphy for invaluable assistance with this Article, as well as Gabriela Blum and Annecoos Wiersema for help with the underlying book chapter.
    [Show full text]
  • Nicole A. Burrowes
    NICOLE A. BURROWES Department of African & African Diaspora Studies University of Texas, Austin Mailcode: E3400 210 West 24th Street Austin, TX 78712 Phone: 917-789-2839 E-mail: [email protected] EDUCATION City University of New York Graduate Center, New York, NY (2015) § Awarded Ph.D. in History. Fields: Latin America & the Caribbean, Africa Diaspora Studies § Awarded Master of Philosophy, September 2010 George Washington University, Washington, DC (2002) § Awarded graduate-level certificate sponsored by the Institute for Historical Documentary Filmmaking New York University, New York, NY (1995) § Bachelor of Arts in History. Minor: Metropolitan Studies. Exchange programs: Dominican Republic, Fall 1994; Spelman College, Spring 1992 RESEARCH & TEACHING INTERESTS African Diaspora Studies Caribbean and Latin American History The Black Freedom Movement in the United States SELECTED PUBLICATIONS PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL ARTICLES Burrowes, Nicole. “Building the World We Want to See: Sista II Sista and the Struggle Against State and Interpersonal Violence.” Souls: A Critical Journal of Black Politics, Culture and Society 20, no. 4 (October-December 2018): 375-398. Burrowes, Nicole, Laura Helton, La TaSha Levy and Deborah McDowell. “Freedom Summer and its Legacies in the Classroom.” The Southern Quarterly 52, no. 4 (2014): 155-172. BOOK CHAPTER Burrowes, Nicole and La TaSha Levy. “Freedom is a Constant Struggle: Teaching the 1964 Mississippi Freedom Project.” In Understanding and Teaching the Civil Rights Movement edited by Hasan Jeffries, 144-158. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2019. BOOK REVIEWS Review of Post-Colonial Trajectories in the Caribbean: The Three Guianas edited by R. Hoefte, M.L. Bishop and P. Clegg. Small States and Territories Journal 1, no.1 (May 2018): 135-6.
    [Show full text]